Circle... A Reminder

[ironmonk]

Seeds are planted.... now, our prayer will be the water.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

More prayer needed.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 4 2004, 12:56 AM'] circle,

correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like ur fundamental premise (or at least one of them anyway) is that the power and authority that the apostles received from Jesus Christ somehow died w/ them and was not passed on to their successors. so, i will attempt here to prove that apostolic succession is real, and it is thru this that the apostles passed on their powers to the Church leaders we have today.

from scripture:

[color=blue][b]Acts 1:20-26[/b]
[b]20 [/b]For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'
[b]21 [/b]Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
[b]22 [/b]beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
[b]23 [/b]So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
[b]24 [/b]Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
[b]25 [/b]to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
[b]26 [/b]Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.[/color]

here it is only natural that upon the death of an apostle, another should take his place. are we to assume that Matthias has no power or authority? is here merely a placemarker? why bother with successors if the successor does not have the same power and authority as the one who came before him? [/quote]
Some things involved in that situation. The first is that it was before pentecost and the apostles felt they needed 12 apostles and that is why they brought in Matthias. If logic follows, then you should have only 12 members today as well that have apostolic authority.

[quote]the apostles were intent on establishing successors, and they transferred their power thru the laying on of hands:

[color=blue][b]Acts 6:3-6[/b]
[b]3 [/b]Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
[b]4 [/b]whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
[b]5 [/b]The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
[b]6 [/b]They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 8:17 [/b]Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
[b]Acts 19:6 [/b]And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.[/color][/quote]
I have no reason to believe that these men had apostolic authority. They were 'filled with the Spirit and wisdom' and sent for specific tasks, but it never refers to them as apostles. They were chosen in the passage as well to *assist* the apostles, not to be apostles. They did the tasks the apostles did not have time to do. Check out the times apostle is used in the chapter and it will confirm this.

[quote]Paul, though he spoke to the Lord himself, was not an apostle until hands were laid upon him:

[color=blue][b]Acts 9:17 [/b]So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."[/color][/quote]
Correct. It can be seen that great strides were taken in the earliest church to confirm that Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Disciples of John the Baptist were all partakers of the same covenant. Here it is emphasized that Paul is not an apostle of a separate Christ (as he was so widely known to be against 'the way') but in fact is under the submission of those he previously had persecuted.

[quote]watch as apostolic succession continues to grow....

[color=blue][b]Acts 13:3-4[/b]
[b]3 [/b]Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
[b]4 [/b]So they, sent forth by the holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed to Cyprus.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 14:23 [/b]They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. [/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 15:22-27[/b]
[b]22 [/b]Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
[b]23 [/b]This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
[b]24 [/b]Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind,
[b]25 [/b]we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[b]26 [/b]who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[b]27 [/b]So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth[/color][/quote]
I see no reason again to believe that any of them (except those refered to as apostles) were apostles. The Acts 15 passage confirms because it is only there in Jerusalem that the apostles did anything or sent out anything. Besides that Barnabas in one passage is mentioned as an apostle (perhaps used nontechnically as no mention of his service is recorded as one?) and Paul.

[quote]notice that here...

[color=blue][b]1 Tim 4:14 [/b]Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word 8 with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.[/color][/quote]
That is to Timothy and he is never referred to as an apostle. Timothy was given many leadership roles but however was still fallible and did not have any authority to write Scripture.

[quote]and again here....

[color=blue][b]2 Tim 1:6 [/b]For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands.[/color]

Paul is reminding Timothy of the gift of the Holy Spirit that he has received through the laying on of hands. also note that this Spirit is one of Power and Truth, given to the apostles by Jesus Christ to guide them into all truth.[/quote]
I don't believe that the ministry given to Timothy was the one to guide him into all truth. That is only promised to the Apostles and there is no reason to believe it is a blanket promise that follows every filling of the Holy Spirit. Instead I would find it better to associate that laying on of the Spirit to be the same as what blanketing all those who spoke in tongues with other miraculous gifts. It was a ministry in which to confirm that a new management/covenant by God had began and confirmed by signs and wonders (Hebrews 2:4).

[quote][color=blue][b]1 Tim 5:22 [/b]Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure.[/color]

this underscores the importance of the gift Timothy has received.[/quote]
It underscores the responsibility those who laid hands on others had. That is why 'another's sins' is emphasized and not Timothy's gift in the passage.

[quote][color=blue][b]2 Tim 4:1-6[/b]
[b]1 [/b]I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:
[b]2 [/b]proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
[b]3 [/b]For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers
[b]4 [/b]and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
[b]5 [/b]But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.
[b]6 [/b]For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand.[/color]

It seems obvious here (or at the very least quite possible) that Paul intends for Timothy to take his place.[/quote]
That does not indicate Timothy had apostolic ability or authority. Just that Paul understood that leaders were needed in the church.

[quote]here is succession yet again:

[color=blue][b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Titus 1:5 [/b]For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you[/color][/quote]
Again appointing leaders.

[quote]hopefully, what i have established here is that apostolic succession is a reality that the apostles were particularly engaged in. furthermore, they enacted this succession through the laying on of hands and it is through this action that the power and authority of the original apostles is passed on to subsequent generations of church leaders.

every bishop in the church has a role of authority only b/c hands were laid upon him by a bishop who came before him. that bishop has authority to pass on only b/c it was given to him by a bishop who came before him as well. the chain of succession and the passing on of authority thru the laying on of hands goes back to the very apostles themselves. it is a mystical, yet fundamental reality.

i hope i have been of some help and that i have been at least remotely effective.

pax christi,
phatcatholic[/quote]

Besides the few comments I made through your posts there is another problem with what you said. It ignores completely the requirements an apostle is required to have.

2 Cor 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

An apostle has signs of wonders and mighty works.

Acts 1:21-22 [21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

An apostle is a witness of Jesus Christ's resurrection.

Ephesians 2:19-22
[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. [22] In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

An apostle is a foundation of the church, not a supporting beam or wall or stud.

[ironmonk]

Circle,

You see no reason because you haven't read the first Christian writings. If you have, you would see the reason.

Why do you assume so much about what Scripture means... there are over 19,000 pages written on it in the first 600 years of Christianity.

The first Christians who were taught by the Apostles, and the people that they taught, and the people that they taught, etc... know the Scriptures very well. Know what they really meant... Also had the sacred oral traditions that where handed on.

[b]2 Thess 2:15 [/b]Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.


[b]"Apostolic succession" does not mean that they are Apostles. Apostolic succession is the passing of the One Faith. [/b]
Ref: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp[/url]

All Catholic bishops can have their [u]lineage [/u]of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles. Not that they are Apostles.




You should read the writings of the witnesses that were faithful and taught by those who where taught by the Apostles to get a better picture of what the bible verses mean.

You can buy the writings here:
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

Or read them for free here:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url]

Or I'll burn them to a CD for you and mail it to you. (I just ask that you go by the nearest Catholic Church and put $3 in the poor box to cover the cost of me burning the CD)

With the Logos disk (it's worth every penny) you can enter the bible verse, and it'll pull up every place that the first Christians wrote about the topic.

An example, I looked up Acts 6:3 and this was the first quote that was found:
[quote]Irenaeus Against Heresies
Book 4
Chapter 15

(Acts 6:3-7)Luke also has recorded that Stephen, who was the first elected into the diaconate by the apostles, and who was the first slain for the testimony of Christ,[/quote]


Acts 6:3-7 is Apostolic succession... the same faith and teaching was passed on to Stephen.

When searching for Acts 8:17 the first result was:

[quote]Theophilus to Autolycus
Book 1 -Chapter 12- Meaning of the Name Christian
Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God (Acts 8:17). [/quote]

There are many more quotes, and they are invaluable for someone seeking the fullness of truth in Christ's Church.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 14, 2004 by ironmonk

[Winchester]

Am I to take it that we have no problem with the UCC, CCC, MCC, etcetera?

Just my bit of nitpicking over the innacurate usage...I digress.


How much and in what ways may a Church change before it becomes an entirely new entity?